This report contains IESG meeting notes, positions and action items.
These minutes were compiled by the IETF Secretariat which is supported
by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NCR 8820945.
For more information please contact the IESG Secretary.
Attendees
---------
Borman, David / Cray Research
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Chapin, Lyman / BBN
Regrets
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Davin, Chuck / Bellcore
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Agenda
------
This teleconference was called to discuss the current IESG plans for
progressing the various proposals for the next IP.
MINUTES
-------
The IESG began with a review of the current state. The IP criteria
document edited by Craig Partridge and Frank Kastenholtz, expected to
be completed by December 15th, is not likely to result in specific
decision criteria. The document is expected to be a listing of
issues to be considered. The IESG had committed to reviewing the
various proposals against the criteria by December 15th.
The IESG affirmed its position that the choice of the next IP will
be made as nearly as possible follow the standard IETF standardization
process of document, implement, and test. To facilitate this work,
and given the current time constraints, the IESG agreed to review the
initial specifications for the proposals and release a list of
comments for each proposal as soon as possible.
All the proposals lack adequate implementation experience. The IESG
has requested and affirmed the requirement that by February 15th,
multiple interoperable implementations be made available for public
review. This requirement goes beyond that necessary for Proposed
Standard and is intended to form the basis for comparison of the
various proposals.
o "P" Internet Protocol/ Extended IP (PIP/EIP)
The IESG discussed PIP and observed that the proposal may face
difficulties in completing the specification, implementation and
deployment within the timeframe expected from the CIDR short term
solution. The IESG also observed that PIP appears to have limited
constituency and will need to demonstrate wider acceptance in the
near term to be considered a serious contender.
o TCP/UDP over Bigger Addresses (TUBA)
The IESG observed that the lack of a well documented deployment and
transition plan was a shortcoming of the current TUBA work. It is
not clear from the current proposals when the various portions of the
Internet will be required to support TUBA and what services will be
available to hosts which do not support TUBA.
o Simple IP/ IP Address Encapsulation (SIP/IPAE)
There is currently no provision for the management of SIP. MIBs for
the management of SIP and the IPAE transition are needed.
The IESG discussed the necessity for unique endpoint identifiers, and
while there was some difficulty reaching a precise definitions, the
IESG, reached agreement that they were essential for the next IP.
The definition used for the purposes of this agreement was "A
globally unique identifier as understood in same sense as IPv4 usage
of a host address"
ACTION: Coya, Gross -- Write up the comments agreed to this meeting and
circulate them to the IESG and the relevant Working Groups.
Appendix - Summary of Action Items
ACTION: Coya, Gross -- Write up the comments agreed to this meeting and
circulate them to the IESG and the relevant Working Groups.
